Dialogue ~ 31

Can a person’s worldview fundamentally shift such that it reflects and/or it transforms their being in the world? How has an articulation of that endeavour appeared to others?

An example of conflict that can arise between those holding differing worldviews is articulated in an exchange between the characters of Jesus and Pilate in the 1971 rock opera ‘Jesus Christ Superstar’ (written by Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice):

Pilate: “Talk to me Jesus Christ. You have been brought here, manacled, beaten by your own people. Do you have the first idea why you deserve it? Listen King of the Jews, where is your kingdom? Look at me, am I a Jew?”

Jesus: “I have no kingdom in this world. I’m through. There may be a kingdom for me somewhere. If you only knew.”

Pilate: “Then you are a king then?”

Jesus: “It’s you that say I am. I look for truth and find that I get damned.”

Pilate: “And what is truth? Is truth unchanging law? We both have truths. Are mine the same as yours?”

This exchange reveals to me that when people orient themselves around an elected or unelected head of state and which has limited choices for change (despite any assurances of freedom), the paradigm experiences conflict throughout itself on meeting a differing model of power. I’ll return to this later.

To offer one perspective of what is occurring, let's look at thermodynamics. It appears that ‘the law of conservation of energy, also known as the first law of thermodynamics, states that energy of a closed system must remain constant – it can neither increase nor decrease without interference from outside. Further, a closed system can exchange energy with its surroundings through heat and work transfer. In other words, work and heat are the forms that energy can be transferred across the system boundary. Based on kinetic theory, heat is defined as the energy associated with the random motions of atoms and molecules.’

Change is possible through kinetic energy being generated within any given system which is experiencing itself in the midst of its transformation.

How does such change look historically, within say the transformation of ownership of power that can take place in society?

If change is instigated from ‘the bottom up’, it reveals the parameters of oppression which had been embodied within the prevailing model; kinetic energy is released through revolution or if the boundaries of power have become indistinct, through implosion. Either way, an increasingly authoritarian model of some description has likely followed in that the forces which had held the society together have exercised their power. We are familiar with the rise and fall of civilisations and of models of boom and bust.

Is it simply the case that a technologically advanced society will, despite an appearance of its levels of sophistication, be functioning within a static modality or way of being in the world and which is hindering its own advancement?

Let’s go back to the dialogue between the characters of Jesus and Pilate in the earlier script. Pilate asks, “Where is your kingdom?” and Jesus replies, “I have no kingdom in this world. I’m through. There may be a kingdom for me somewhere. If you only knew.”

Pilate is experiencing conflict because he is unable to reconcile the kingdom of which Jesus speaks as having a location other than that which he can perceive through his own way of thinking or model of the world. Effectively, he is encountering a new paradigm. The dialogue moves to the topic of truth, whereby Jesus affirms that he has been looking for truth and finds that the old paradigm is no longer congruent (it turns upon him). Pilate, who is experiencing confusion from his encounter with a new paradigm (but is unable to recognise it) seeks release from his discomfort by striving for clarity of information as he asks Jesus whether their truths are the same.

The crux of the matter appears to be the differential between knowledge that is obtained through ordinary perception of what is visible in the world (the prevailing paradigm) and of knowledge that is tangible through the faculty of one’s gnosis or knowing. Remember how Xenophanes had pointed out, that (aside from the filters which one takes with them into an experience of knowing), that even if one were able to speak of it, the modalities which are available to them to convey their experience, including that of language itself would distort meaning.

Aside from the mechanics of thermodynamics, why is it that whilst ‘the many’ appear to be reconciled within an existing paradigm (even if their personal experience of it is not as fulfilling as they’d prefer), there are ‘rogue’ elements as they are viewed, who pose potential threats to the stabilisation of a system? Are these individuals dissonant because of some character flaw within themselves or are they exhibiting some innate driving force which is peculiar to human beings?

Are such individuals acting in isolation or because they are fulfilling the expression of an emergent and unified tapestry of human consciousness? Either way, there is clearly some compulsion to strive for new horizons, constantly stirring up the terrain in which it is possible to experience oneself, so as to generate fresh insight or meaning. Perhaps we could also ask however, ‘how much meaning does one need, given as it could be argued that the world is fundamentally what it is?’

How are we to make sense also, of what Jesus had reputedly said in the Gospel of Thomas, “Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the All.”

It is clear from what Jesus was saying, that he acknowledges the presence of a paradigm or worldview which appears to be set up to provide an impetus for an individual to seek clarity (or truth) of their purpose and meaning from the very depths of their participating within it.  What is not so clear from what Jesus reveals (in this fragment) is why some individuals will stay with the dissonance and allow for it to resolve itself (from being troubled through to astonishment to reconciliation) and why others will submit to an existing paradigm as providing for all the answers that they need.

We must revisit what the Ionian and Eleatic schools of thinkers or philosophers had embarked upon when they set out to discern the fundamental nature of the world (or the one) and of how (or if it is even possible) that change is brought about; of the nature of being and becoming.